Deficit, Budget, and War

[Abu Suleyman]

Does the number required not depend on your doctrine and tactical principles? If it does, then the question becomes are those principles currently in place the best for the world as it is today? Do we have 500K or more nearly a Million?

I agree, and I am basing the 500k on the roughly half a mil active Army, since I assume that AF and Navy missions wouldn't change all that much. I also presume that the Marines mission wouldn't change all that much either, since it sounds a lot like what you are describing.

I would opt for more troops, perhaps about 1.5 to 2 M -- but with only about 350-400K active; the rest would be in the Guard and Reserve. That 350-400K does not count the USMC which is not going away...

I think if I were absolute commander of the military I would be even more radical than you would. I would have no problem with the configuration that you propose, but I would say that we should also allow people to enter and leave the military periodically as they choose.

Basically, (and I realize this is an oversimplification, but not by a lot) the military views the world as either in or out. Anything you did on the outside does not matter, and once you are out it can be very hard to get back in. With a few important exceptions, if you come into the military you start at the bottom whether E-1 or O-1. If you get out, and I mean out-out and not into the reserves, anything that you do does not matter should you attempt to return. The net effect is that there is only one door into the military building, and lots of doors out.

I believe that we should be flexible in allowing people entrance and exit to the military, and not treat everything that happened outside the military as if it doesn't matter. Of course, there really is nothing like combat arms except in the military, but truthfully supply chains, intelligence, maintenance and a whole host of other issues are almost perfectly analogous within and without the military. Why should someone who has been doing intel for the past ten years as a GS-whatever have to start out as a 2LT and hope he gets intel. Moreover, why not allow people to take breaks from the military, learn new things, and return at a rank and pay grade appropriate to the level of their abilities.

This is how things used to be, and it is how things are in the rest of government and in the medical community. I think that a military more integrated in our society would benefit both society and the military and society. I confess that I have no idea how we would have to configure our military with such a structure, and it would probably take some trial and error to get it right. (And you thought I was an inside the box type).

I don't agree with inevitable but it is certainly a possibility and therefor needs to acknowledged in plans.

Inevitable is probably a strong word. It isn't inevitable in the same sense a perhaps an asteroid on a collision course with earth is inevitable. It is inevitable in the same sense that an idiot with money will end up broke. Theoretically the idiot could avoid calamity, but he is an idiot. Theoretically the bureaucracy could avoid those problems but...

I again state that it is possible to control territory without occupying it provided one is trained and equipped to do so. An MRAP is not the vehicle of choice for that, nor is Bradley or an M1 -- neither is a helicopter. OTOH, if you want to physically occupy space, then the ground vehicles have a use -- the Helicopter is still not a good choice for the movement of people (okay for supplies). It's not even good for commanders who become physically and emotionally separated from their troops. Not good for the Troops because it physically and psychologically separates them from the ground on which they operate.

Insert countless stories of misuse of equipment here.

Raids aren't the only other option, just one I cited.

I used the nomenclature of "raids" because, although you did not specifically say it, your strategy seems to imply short duration and therefore a planned exit. An operation where the exit is planned used to be the definition of a raid. It doesn't have to be a "raid" in the classic sense of running up, raising hell, and leaving, but for lack of a better word, but anything from sabotage of a nuclear power plant to the 1979 Sino-Viet-namese war qualifies using my definition.

If you do raids, you aren't looking at three month deployments, more like a week or two. In any event, you'd have to work on selling me on deployments (in the current usage of the term) of less than a year.

I suppose when I said deployment I meant time away from home, and not necessarily away from homestation. Nevertheless, it is almost an axiom of organization that the more people who become involved, the longer things take. When the Marines ship out for some thing, no matter how large or small, it generally means 7 months away from family. I think that if we could keep it down to 3 we would be lucky. I could be wrong though.

I understand all the reasons for shorter deployment, I just disagree. Lengthy tours in unfriendly places go with the job; those not prepared for that should find other employment -- one reason why I say a smaller active force; fewer will join if the deployment rules change.

Unfortunately, smaller organizations usually result from a higher attrition rate, as well as a lower recruitment rate, which can lead to less institutional knowledge and therefore less experience. There is no way to know at the beginning who will last 20+ years, so it is not like you can recruit only those who will make it.

The loss of continuity, tactically and operationally is not worth the slight benefit gained (I realize most will not agree with this but we may see how that works with some folks in Afghanistan in the near future).Yes and no; longer enlistments / active duty requirements, better initial training and more unit training -- as opposed to units that piddle around in garrison a lot -- will mean less time in training because people would spend more time doing.

I think you are talking about the Victorian Era British model. I couldn't agree more. This is where my in and out model of the military would work. I bet we could get plenty of all kinds of people to sign up for long tours of understanding and controlling but not occupying area, if they knew that upfront. Stay a long time and get the job done; then return home and do it again or don't.

Congress and the Mothers of America do not want truly competent and dangerous armed forces; just moderately competent. However, my point was and is that interventions in other nations should be avoided because we do not do them well, they do not suit the American psyche and impatient nature, are more expensive in all aspects than several alternatives and we -- as you originally said -- cannot afford the force we now have and some drastic reprogramming will be required in the future.

No argument here, except to say that we aren't alone in our incompetence. It seems to be a flaw of human nature that we are seized with the uncontrollable desire to meddle in the affairs of others, but are deprived of the ability to do so effectively.


All that said, and it seems like we actually do see eye to eye on some if not most of these issues, I think that such a change bodes ill for two groups in particular: International Organizations which rely on American soldiers for the heavy lifting, and small or less militarily capable nations that rely on the US for their defense. While not what the US military is designed for, their bodies do a lot of the work for groups like NATO or the UN, who would be hard pressed to even exist without them. And lets face it there are plenty of countries, including some whom we consider powerful, whose basic military strategy is "Hold out (or don't) and let the Americans rescue us." I do worry that a precipitous transition from our current status brought on by the many negative problems resulting from bankruptcy, could result in destabilizing the international arena, and make the world for us, and everyone else, less secure.

[Ken White]

I think if I were absolute commander of the military I would be even more radical ... I would say that we should also allow people to enter and leave the military periodically as they choose.

Very much agree.

I confess that I have no idea how we would have to configure our military with such a structure, and it would probably take some trial and error to get it right. (And you thought I was an inside the box type).

Didn't think that, merely trying to highlight how easy it is to rely on the familiar and pick up the same tools out of habit...

Agree on the trial and error -- the Army, in addition to radically revising the Personnel System (to the extent of firing or moving everyone currently involved and starting all over) -- should be more willing to experiment.

It doesn't have to be a "raid" in the classic sense of running up, raising hell, and leaving, but for lack of a better word, but anything from sabotage of a nuclear power plant to the 1979 Sino-Viet-namese war qualifies using my definition.

Raids are good, strategic raids are a good alternative to many things, so I'm a believer. Better Intel and more aggressive diplomacy would be a big help. On one thing I'm firmly convinced -- committing the GPF to nation building should be a last resort and if it is done, a civilian should be in charge.

...When the Marines ship out for some thing, no matter how large or small, it generally means 7 months away from family.

In addition to fixing a bankrupt personnel system and significantly improving training, we also need to overhaul the pay structure -- which is essentially a 1917 construct. We could start by not rewarding a guy to be married -- I'd opt for paying a bonus to stay single but the Mothers of America and Religion Inc. would go berserk...

There is no way to know at the beginning who will last 20+ years, so it is not like you can recruit only those who will make it.

On that I don't agree; we could better select new entrants, have higher standards, refine the pay and training and have a waiting list to get in -- and if your suggestion of a revolving door were also adopted...

I bet we could get plenty of all kinds of people to sign up for long tours of understanding and controlling but not occupying area, if they knew that upfront. Stay a long time and get the job done; then return home and do it again or don't.

True.

International Organizations which rely on American soldiers for the heavy lifting, and small or less militarily capable nations that rely on the US for their defense. While not what the US military is designed for, their bodies do a lot of the work for groups like NATO or the UN, who would be hard pressed to even exist without them. And lets face it there are plenty of countries, including some whom we consider powerful, whose basic military strategy is "Hold out (or don't) and let the Americans rescue us." I do worry that a precipitous transition from our current status brought on by the many negative problems resulting from bankruptcy, could result in destabilizing the international arena, and make the world for us, and everyone else, less secure.

That's all true and I think some of that could be turned around with better diplomacy and lowered US military visibility worldwide. We should avoid some commitments because we'll merely become targets and we have to stop trying to fight nicely; that never works. Hard and fast will do less damage and create less casualties of all kinds. The harder and more rapid the better...

[Abu Suleyman]

I'd opt for paying a bonus to stay single but the Mothers of America and Religion Inc. would go berserk...

I have mixed feelings on this myself. I served my time as a single soldier, and sometimes felt that I missed out on having a set support at home, but by the same token, the divorce rate is so high, that even marriage wasn't really a guarantee. And for some people it was a real distractor.

That said, I don't think that we could successfully pay people to not get married. After all, the way that so many soldiers get engaged (e.g. to a local stripper) and married (e.g. after two weeks of knowing someone) divorce is almost a guarantee, and that is like fining yourself half of your pay for the rest of your life. That said, some of that is because of the incentives to get married in the military, and the short sighted nature of "Joe". In fact, we should start a new thread for all of the stupid "Joe got married and..." stories.

On that I don't agree; we could better select new entrants, have higher standards, refine the pay and training and have a waiting list to get in -- and if your suggestion of a revolving door were also adopted...True.

I don't think that we disagree as much as the initial nature of the comment sounds. I think we can shape the system and improve the incentive structure so that better outcomes are more likely. I don't think, nor do I think you believe, that we can guarantee outcome. Bottom line, with all the tests and waiting lists and everything, there will still be people who only last for so long, and we need to account for that in planning.

We should avoid some commitments because we'll merely become targets and we have to stop trying to fight nicely; that never works. Hard and fast will do less damage and create less casualties of all kinds. The harder and more rapid the better...

This actually gets us back to the political discussion that we were veering onto earlier in the thread. I personally would like to see less military adventurism, as long as that did correspond to denigrating military service, or a lack of willingness to use force when absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, historically there has been a correlation between the two. At the same time, the entire world is better off if we plan our devolution of power, rather than have it forced upon us by our own short sighted prodigality. I guess I look at the Indian sub-continent when Britain departed, and how the consequences of the precipitate nature thereof are with us today.

[Ken White]

That said, I don't think that we could successfully pay people to not get married. After all, the way that so many soldiers get engaged (e.g. to a local stripper) and married (e.g. after two weeks of knowing someone) divorce is almost a guarantee, and that is like fining yourself half of your pay for the rest of your life. That said, some of that is because of the incentives to get married in the military, and the short sighted nature of "Joe". In fact, we should start a new thread for all of the stupid "Joe got married and..." stories.

Three factors. The local stripper knows that Joe will get X dollars (she can probably read an LES better than he can). So does SPC Veronica at Bde. Both also know how much more he will get if they marry and thus they rope Joe for the coins. Joe goes along with this to get what he wants which has nothing to do with money. To a 19 year old, sex is an emergency...

The second factor is that the educational system in the US has not kept up with the times. They went from being a part time custodian of reasonably well disciplined kids to whom they were expected to impart a sound knowledge of the basics and teach to be orderly to a an institution that has more custody time for kids than do the parents -- and yet adamantly refuses to teach those kids any life skill or to discipline them. Thus Joe grows to the ripe old age of 18 plus and joins up with mostly little clue of what life may hold.

Then he hits a unit. If they care about him, he gets some education and mentoring. If, as occurs too often, they do not really care about him, he's left alone to do what he wants when he isn't being jerked around and treated as a not too bright stepchild. Then we wonder why he makes poor decisions. We could and should treat the kid better and demand more from him at the same time. We also need to train him to avoid that stripper and SPC Veronica and their wiles -- at least on a permanent / semi-permanent basis...

Used to have a Squad Leader who'd go to town and drink with his troops when he got a new one in who claimed a 'girl friend.' He'd go, leave with the girl -- and thus teach the kid a brutal but very effective lesson; old guys who are ugly and have no social skills have more money than young studs and girls know this. Not too many care enough to do that nowadays. Too busy with their own wives and kids...

We're trying to run a modern professional Army like it was a between the World Wars unit. Doesn't work too well. If we're not going to be in loco Parentis to Joe -- and the new Barracks say that is the case -- then we need to train Joe to take care of himself and treat him like an adult. That is a massive mind shift for the Army, one that'll take a generation or so to embed.

We could, in the interim, at least stop giving Joe a pay increase to get married...

Bottom line, with all the tests and waiting lists and everything, there will still be people who only last for so long, and we need to account for that in planning.

True and thus the revolving door -- which should include ready access to the Guard and Reserve and vice versa as well as to other services and the civilian agencies of government. Yeah, I know...

I personally would like to see less military adventurism, as long as that did correspond to denigrating military service, or a lack of willingness to use force when absolutely necessary.

Agreed. We could be a bit smarter than we have been.

Now, Take Congress...

Pleeezz

[slapout9]

To a 19 year old, sex is an emergency...

That should be an SWC quote of the year winner

[Abu Suleyman]

If we're not going to be in loco Parentis to Joe -- and the new Barracks say that is the case -- then we need to train Joe to take care of himself and treat him like an adult. That is a massive mind shift for the Army, one that'll take a generation or so to embed.

Agreed, and when you are half stepping between "Being Daddy" and "You're an adult, bucko!" it will be increasingly infuriating for our soldiers.

We could, in the interim, at least stop giving Joe a pay increase to get married...

I just gotta share this story.

When I was a DLI, affectionately know as the Desperate Loving Institute, a sizable number of students got married to other students. This was in no small part due to the non-monetary incentives. First, if you were married, you got to live, basically unsupervised (i.e. like other people of your age) in quite nice housing on Ft. Ord. If you were single, no matter your age or rank (up to SFC!) you lived in a postage stamp barracks on the Presidio, where you were subjected to constant "Hey you!" details, mass punishment, and bi-monthly inspections that would take up every other Saturday, no matter how clean your barracks room was kept. Secondly, if you married someone who spoke a language radically different than yours, (e.g. Farsi and Chinese) you greatly increased the odds of being assigned to Ft. Mead, which everyone knew was a great place to ETS into a high paying job, instead of Ft. Gordon, or a line unit, where you were likely to deploy.

Funny thing happens on the way to the forum, though. Once you are out in the force, and have your orders, those incentives go away. Most people get promoted to E-5 where you can live off base, and off course, orders are orders. Therefore, the divorce rate sky rockets. Anecdotally, fewer than half of DLI marriages made it to the first duty station.

Bottom line is, I whole heartedly agree that the screwed up incentive structure is a bad idea. Indeed, given the time and the money I could probably convince the "Mothers of America" of it as well. I am sure that a fair number of the high divorce rates amongst soldiers come from people who married purely with the intent to make money off of it.

[J Wolfsberger]

To a 19 year old, sex is an emergency...

That should be an SWC quote of the year winner

I second that.

[Schmedlap]

In fact, we should start a new thread for all of the stupid "Joe got married and..." stories.

A mere thread? More like a multi-volume treatise.